-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote: | | Correction: You don't want to understand that. It can be easily seen from the | fact that you accused me of "intentional muddling with licenses" before even | looking at the source code, that it is not your intention to understand what | is going on. Fortunately, what you say is of absolutely no relevance. I have | always opted against the inclusion of cc65 into Debian because of licensing | issues, and given the trouble I had with other code that is part of Debian, I | would be happy if cc65 would never become part of Debian. So actually we both | have the same interest. |
I like to think that this can be put in Debian's non-free section given a slightly clarified license, which was the purpose of my original e-mail, since I was unable to fully figure out what was covered under what, and getting licensing exact is important. All I *could* tell was that some of the compiler code may have come from the original compiler, but I had no hints. It's certainly not illegal, but it did confuse me a bit. But I hope that can be set aside, and now that the situation has been clarified we can get the package at least into 'non-free'. It's just those four files that contain pieces of the old code, correct? It's easy enough for me to say so in debian/copyright. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFA3Jwj3ZWQ5WzMh1oRAovAAJ9zVrAf1yKTJ9UUTEOvwXwVzTsgpQCgosTn /7AvtCMepEEVJmQL2Qu4f70= =4ZOw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
